FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn is credited with writing that “the line separating good and evil is drawn through the human heart.” That line exists in all of us; it has been within the human heart since the Fall, when Adam and Eve allowed it to be drawn upon their hearts by the Serpent.

It winds through the dramatic story of the Passion, heard at length in today’s Gospel reading, which describes the cosmic clash, the bloody battle, and the inner struggle between good and evil. The Passion took place during the combined feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the greatest feast of the Jewish liturgical year. This commemorated the Exodus from Egypt, when the people were freed from centuries of bondage and established as a nation by the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai.

There is much to ponder in St. Mark’s account, but I’ll focus on two disciples—two men who had walked and lived with Jesus for some three years: Judas and Peter.

We are well acquainted with them, but there is, I think, a temptation to take their actions for granted. History and familiarity has a way of dulling our sense of how real and serious were their choices. Put another way: what if Judas had repented of his betrayal of Jesus? What if Peter had not repented of his denial of his Lord? The line between good and evil was drawn through both of their hearts, yet one despaired and committed suicide, while the other was restored and became the first pope.

Jesus chose both men and they spent endless hours and days with him, learning at his feet, seeing his example. What was the difference between them? Pope Benedict XVI, in his October 18, 2006, general audience, reflected on the choice and actions of Judas. He noted reasons related to money and political agendas have been suggested as causes of Judas’s betrayal, but wrote that in the end we must go “beyond historical motivations, explaining what occurred by basing it on Judas' personal responsibility, who yielded miserably to a temptation of the evil one. In any case, Judas' betrayal continues to be a mystery. Jesus treated him as a friend (cf. Matthew 26:50), but in his invitations to follow him on the path of the beatitudes he did not force his will or prevent him from falling into Satan's temptations, respecting human freedom.”

The human heart, the Holy Father reminded us, is capable of heinous and dark perversions. It is easy to think we are incapable of real evil, that only men such as Hitler, serial killers, or terrorists are truly evil. Such thinking can be the first step down the road to evil, for it fails to honestly assess and acknowledge the human condition—our condition. And when we mistakenly think we can keep ourselves from temptation and sin, we go further down the road. That road is usually not steep at first; it is a gentle incline, with little to suggest it might lead to ruin and damnation.

When the line is finally crossed, it can become easy, even commonplace, to give Jesus a kiss while betraying him in our hearts. Receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin is one such betrayal, for doing so publicly declares a loving and loyal communion with the Savior that, in reality, has been severed.

Peter recognized that he had broken communion with Jesus: “He broke down and wept.” But instead of giving in to despair, he gave himself over completely to the Lord. “Jesus waits for us to have the disposition to repent and to be converted,” Pope Benedict said, “he is rich in mercy and forgiveness.”

The Son, the second Person of the Trinity, “humbled himself,” St. Paul wrote, “becoming obedient to the point of death.” As we prepare for the greatest feast of the year, we are called to humility and obedience and trust. It is the only way to keep from crossing the line.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the April 5, 2009, issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Friday, March 30, 2012

Mary Eberstadt is my friend, but I’ll risk charges of special pleading and self-plagiarism by quoting my endorsement on the dust jacket of her new book, Adam and Eve after the Pill (Ignatius Press): “Mary Eberstadt is our premier analyst of American cultural foibles and follies, with a keen eye for oddities that illuminate just how strange the country’s moral culture has become.” That strangeness is on full display in the ongoing controversy over the HHS-“contraceptive mandate”—an exercise in raw governmental coercion depicted by much of the mainstream media (and, alas, by too many Catholics on the port side of the barque of Peter) as a battle between Enlightened Sexual Liberation and The Antediluvian Catholic Church. Anyone who thinks of this battle in those terms should spend a few evenings reading Adam and Eve after the Pill.

As the talismanic year 2000 approached, and like virtually every other talking head and scribe in the world, I was asked what I thought the history-changing scientific discoveries of the 20th-century had been. And like the rest of the commentariat, I answered, “splitting the atom (which unleashed atomic energy for good or ill) and unraveling the DNA double-helix (which launched the new genetics and the new biotechnology).” Today, after a decade of pondering why the West is committing slow-motion demographic suicide through self-induced infertility, I would add a third answer: the invention of the oral contraceptive, “the Pill.”

With insight, verve and compassion, Adam and Eve after the Pill explores the results of what Mary Eberstadt bluntly describes as the “optional and intentional sterility in women” the Pill has made possible for three generations.

A Fresh Look and a New Direction for a Revered Publication | Catholic World Report

Catholic Digest’s new editor, Danielle Bean, discusses the magazine’s new focus, the joys and challenges of being a writer, and the future of print media in an increasingly digital world

Last fall, publishing company Bayard, Inc. announced it was taking its 76-year-old publication, Catholic Digest, in a new direction—in addition to an updated format and focus, the Catholic-media stalwart would also be receiving a new editor: award-winning Catholic author and blogger Danielle Bean.

Catholic World Report: Going back a bit—when and how did you decide to pursue a life of writing, editing, blogging, and wordsmithing in general?

Danielle Bean: I think God kind of decided that for me, and I’ve just been along for the ride. I have always enjoyed writing and I thought I might like to do some freelance work someday, but when I started sending out submissions via snail mail almost 10 years ago, I could never have envisioned what it might lead to. The Internet was in its infancy and most of us were just beginning to figure out what kind of tool it might be. When my freelance work led to a regular column and my regular column led to a book, I tried out some online stuff as a way to promote the book and connect with other Catholics. It was an exciting time to try out new things and meet new people through new media. I was blogging for about a year before I even knew what a “blog” was.

CWR: What have been some of the highlights, so far, of your career in writing and editing?

That is not a recent soundbite, nor is it a remark made in response to the HHS mandate. It is from the 1995 book, The Church and the Culture War (Ignatius Press), written by the now-retired Dr. Joyce Little, who taught for many years at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. The book is now out of print (with a few used copies available on amazon.com) and some of its examples and references are, not surprisingly, a bit dated. But it is a timely book, with a nearly endless stream of insights into the theological confusion and cultural wars of the past several decades. It is one of my favorite Ignatius Press books.

And it occurred to me, as I was recently re-reading passages in the book (one of which is below), that Dr. Little's book could well be the middle volume of a relatively short, highly engaging Ignatius Press trilogy that, once read, will provide people with an education both wide and deep about The Pill, the sexual revolution, and the resulting crises upon us today.

presents a critical look at the meaning of the “right to privacy” that has been so often employed by the Supreme Court in recent times to justify the creation of rights not found in the Constitution by any traditional method of interpreting a legal document. Smith shows how these inventions have led to the legal protection of abortion, assisted suicide, homosexual acts, and more.

You can get a good sense of Smith's approach in this excerpt from my 2009 Ignatius Insight interview with her about the book:

Ignatius Insight: If Roe v. Wade was the poster child (no pun intended) for the "right to privacy," what was Griswold v. Connecticut? Why was that 1965 decision so significant?Janet E. Smith: I suppose Griswold v. Connecticut was its grand debut. In that decision the courts attempted to find some basis on which they could overturn laws against the sale, distribution and use of contraception. For nearly a century many states and the federal government had had laws against contraception. Planned Parenthood assiduously challenged those laws but they were repeatedly affirmed by legislatures and courts.

In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the sale, distribution and use of contraceptives—by married couples. As is well known, there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution nor were the justices clear on which amendment implied a "right to privacy" that would guarantee access to contraception. A short two years later the court expanded that right to the use of contraceptives by the unmarried. In 1973, the court found that the right to privacy extended to the right to have an abortion. There, too, laws of all fifty states were overturned by the votes of a few justices.

The right to privacy has become a very elastic right; it has been used to legalize contraception, abortion, assisted suicide and homosexual acts. Virtually no one can give a coherent explanation of what this right is and what it legitimately protects. It has become a wild card that permits the courts to advance a very liberal not to say libertine agenda, often overriding the decisions of state legislatures and courts.

While Smith's book presents the history and legal philosophies at work, Little's book dives, with real profundity and even elegance, into the theological and cultural roots of the culture of death, drawing upon Scripture, natural law, Humanae Vitae, the writings of Bl. John Paul II, Chesterton, Guardini, and many others.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

The Serious Games of Life and Death | Meryl Amland | Catholic World Report

Box-office hit The Hunger Games depicts the fight for freedom and dignity in a dystopian future.

One of the most popular dystopian novels in recent literature, The Hunger Games, was released this past weekend as a major motion picture. Critics are estimating the new hit could possibly generate more revenue than either Harry Potter or Twilight. The first weekend at the box office brought in $155 million, so I am willing to bet those estimates are correct. Suzanne Collins’ trilogy has captivated audiences of all ages, and the first movie is a surprisingly good adaptation of the book.

The Hunger Games is set in what we assume to be a future North America, now divided into 12 districts, known as Panem. These districts are ruled by the Capitol, where the Hunger Games—much like ancient Rome’s gladiatorial games—are held each year. One boy and one girl, between the ages of 12 and 18, are chosen at random from each district and then sent to the Capitol to fight to the death in a giant arena. Twenty-four “tributes” go in; only one can come out alive. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in the impoverished District 12. When her little sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), is chosen as the female tribute for their district, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Along with the male tribute, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss must learn what it takes to survive the Hunger Games.

Those worried parents who think this is just another popular-teenage-hormone-story-competing-with-the-Twilight-books-and-now-made-into-a-movie should consider watching the movie, or better yet, reading the book. Admittedly, stories about a bunch of teenagers killing each other for reality television did not appeal to me either at first, considering such stories can be found on television already (if not quite so literally). Not even the popular Katniss-Gale-Peeta love triangle attracted me.

However, I discovered a rather more crucial theme underlying the entirety of the film: the value and dignity of human life in the face of a tyrannical government. Don’t believe me? Read on.

Today, we face a political/religious challenge, Islam, in which, avoiding hard truths, exposes us to a real and present danger.

I am not disposed toward the soothingly facile idea embodied in the popular expression, “Let’s agree to disagree.” That trite phrase, intended to avoid confrontation, generally has the effect of delaying, or defeating entirely, any attempt to uncover the truth or error at the root of the question under disagreement. Indeed, agreeing to disagree is what allowed slavery to continue in America for three quarters of a century after the Constitution was ratified. And, it remains a favorite concept of politicians who seek to advance their own agendas behind the screen of an alleged “bipartisanship.”

Such shallow diplomacy is embedded in the contemporary exaltation of tolerance as the primary virtue necessary for life in a civil society. It is sham wisdom grounded in the hope that acceptance of each other’s perception of reality will produce peaceful co-existence (“Whatever works for you!”). What it actually produces is the lie of relativism, which holds that all opinions and cultural practices are equally true and good.

Not confronting difficult questions is destructive of civilization. The American Civil War shows how not dealing with the critical issue of human rights led to national disaster. In more recent times, agreeing to disagree over the intentions and behavior of the Nazis, during the years before World War II, led to conflict on a global scale. Only the clear-sightedness and courage of Winston Churchill, who exposed Hitler’s perverted philosophy and ultimate goals when others chose to look away in appeasement, prepared Britain for war, and kept Germany from conquering Europe.

Religion is an area in which agreeing to disagree is the default position. It’s one of two extremely touchy subjects which social prudence counsels never to discuss (the other being politics). And I can’t deny that, throughout most of our history, the standard American formula for religious concord—You go to your church, and I’ll go to mine!—has largely succeeded in avoiding the extremes of European-style, sectarian strife which the Founding Fathers were so intent on keeping from our shores.

Today, however, we face a political/religious challenge in which, avoiding hard truths, exposes us to a real and present danger. That is the challenge of Islam. We may agree to disagree about what portion of the Muslim population is sympathetic to Islamist extremism. But, anyone who fails to acknowledge the reality that violence is being carried out daily in the name of Allah and the Qur’an is not in disagreement, but rather in a pathological state of denial.

Offer ends Tuesday April 3rd, 2012 at 12:00 midnight EST. These prices are available online only through Ignatius.com

To prepare for Holy Week and Easter, Ignatius Press is offering 20% off of ideal books and films for the season. Reflect on Our Lord's last days by reading Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week or delve into de Wohl's novel on the Crucifixion The Spear. Join top Bible experts as they discuss the true meaning of Christ's death and resurrection in the fascinating & informative documentary film Did Jesus Really Rise from The Dead? Choose from any one of these great titles at 20% off to help prepare yourself for the upcoming Easter season.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Charlie Spiering reports for Crisis magazine about the Rally for Reason, which featured a bunch of people without ultimate purpose who randomly gathered to and emote and to talk, by complete chance, about their accidentally shared hatred of religion, which they insist, with great intensity, is beneath them and is not worthy of their attention—other than, of course, holding a six-hour rally:

But as gloomy rain clouds hung low over the Washington Monument, the rally quickly degenerated into open mockery of religion and people of faith.

“F— the motherf—-, f— the mother—- pope,” sang Musician Tim Minchin as he played profane songs on the piano for a laughing and cheering crowd.

Few religions remained unscathed while cruel spokesmen of reason roundly ridiculed Mormons, Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims.

Perhaps some of the talented people involved thought it was a Rally for Ridicule and Rage? Apparently so:

But even the laughs turned into malaise as the event drew to a close. Famed atheist headliner Richard Dawkins labored through a speech that quickly grew bitter.

“Do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ?” he said, ridiculing Catholics. “Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?”

Hawkins challenged his fellow atheists to expose people who still cling to their faith in spite of their doubts.

“Mock them, ridicule them in public, don’t fall for the convention that we’re far to polite to talk about religion,” a frustrated Dawkins continued, “Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe, which need to be substantiated. They should be challenged and ridiculed with contempt.”

Mockery and ridicule aren't, of course, owned and copyrighted by atheists; you'll find plenty of Christians who are jerks, oafs, blockheads, fools, loons, and all-around louts. But I've never heard, say, the Pope or Billy Graham or some other significant, recognized leader of particular Christian churches or groups say, "Mock them, ridicule them in public" and so forth. But, really, is anyone that surprised? Dawkins might be a fine biologist, but when it comes to religion and philosophy, he's not just the emperor without clothes, he's the proverbial atheist without arguments—that is, real arguments. He has learned that mockery, ridicule, and contempt are the best tools for spreading the religion of anti-religion, since it distracts from all of the nagging questions and robust arguments that otherwise might have to be addressed. Dr. Edward Feser, himself once an atheist, has written:

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Meaning of the Papal Mass in Mexico | Matthew Cullinan Hoffman | Catholic World Report

Sunday’s Mass in Silao was an expression of liturgical reform and a message of hope to millions of Mexican faithful

When Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass last Sunday at Guanajuato Bicentennial Park in Silao with hundreds of thousands of Mexicans in attendance, and millions more watching on television, he did so not only as a shepherd communicating with his flock, but as an evangelist for a liturgical reform that is slowly transforming the way Catholics worship.

In sharp contrast with the Masses that Mexicans typically experience in their parishes, the pontiff's liturgy—including the Scripture readings—was sung in Gregorian chant and other solemn forms of choral music. Moreover, the central and holiest part of the Mass, the canon, was said entirely in Latin.

The pope celebrated before a large solid-block altar adorned on its front with an elaborate silver facade containing a traditional image of Jesus as the Lamb of God in the center. On each side were three large candles, and in the center a crucifix stood, facing the pope, with a small candle next to it. Although many bishops were present in the presbyterum, only two concelebrated with Benedict at the altar.

Although the solemnity and traditional style of the pontiff's Mass has become familiar to visitors to St. Peter's Basilica, the pope's way of worship is revolutionary in a land that has long succumbed to modern fashions in liturgical worship. In contemporary Mexico, guitars and entertainment-style musical forms have become common, and choral singing is confined largely to weddings and funerals. Latin has all but disappeared, embraced only by the country's small but growing traditionalist movement. Mass attendance is in sharp decline.

The venue in which the papal Mass was celebrated was also likely to send a message to Mexicans. Bicentennial Park is situated within eyeshot of the Christ the King monument, built by Catholics following the Mexican government's persecution of the Church during the 1930s and 40s. Benedict was brought to the site in a helicopter, which flew over the statue before landing close to the park itself. Following the Mass, he presented local Church officials with a mosaic depiction of Christ the King, to be displayed in the sanctuary of Cubilete Hill, where the statue is situated.

Submission to Christ the King

To the crowd of an estimated 650,000 faithful present at the park, the Holy Father gave a sermon recalling the importance of hope in times of distress, and invoking the kingship of Christ as foremost a spiritual phenomenon.

Fr. James McTavish examines the question in detail in a recent HPR essay, "Mary, Mother of Mercy. Christ the Power of Merciful Love":

We have many popular prayers that speak of Mary as Mother of Mercy. For example, “Hail holy Queen, Mother of mercy” … and, later: “turn, then, your eyes of mercy towards us.” In another prayer, the Memorare, we hear: “To you I come, before you I stand, sinful and sorrowful, O Mother of the Word incarnate, despise not my petitions but in your mercy, hear and answer me.” Moreover, in the lives of the saints, we hear Mary referred to as “Mother of mercy.” Once, St. Maria Faustina Kowalska had a vision of the Blessed Mother. Mary said to Sr. Faustina: “I am not only the Queen of Heaven, but also the Mother of Mercy, and your Mother” (Diary of St. Faustina,330). Also, Pope John Paul II refers to Mary as Mother of Mercy in his 1980 encyclical, Dives in Misericordia:

Mary is also the one who obtained mercy in a particular and exceptional way … Mary, then, is the one who has the deepest knowledge of the mystery of God’s mercy. She knows its price, she knows how great it is. In this sense, we call her the “Mother of mercy” (§9).

Note that the Hebrew word for mercy, rahamim, comes from rehem, a mother’s womb. God’s mercy must have something of a maternal warmth about it—unconditional, intimate, and nurturing love, symbolized by a mother’s womb. God’s mercy is, therefore, tender and affectionate, life-giving and indispensable. God chose Mary to reveal this merciful love to us. Therefore, we need Mary in our lives as Christians. Many people, many sects, will tell you that you don’t need Mother Mary. Have you heard that? One elderly Jesuit I know told me once that some people were arguing about how we don’t need Mary in order to know Jesus. They told him to go directly to Jesus. He replied that God has given us Mary for a reason, suggesting finally: “Okay, you go directly to Jesus; I will go through Mary. And we will see who gets there first!”

Monday, March 26, 2012

The science fiction author, Ursula Le Guin, was recently in town (she lives up the interstate in Portland) to talk about the great threat that hovers Darth Vader's bad breath over civilization: book censorship by fundamentalist Protestants. Huh. Is she stuck in the early 1970s or something? Apparently:

Sometime in the 1970s, a group of fundamentalist Christians in the United States decided that “fantasy was evil,” famed science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin told a standing-room-only crowd of about 200 at the Eugene Public Library on Saturday.

“A lot of school boards had members who were kind of determined to get fantasy and sci-fi away from kids,” the Portland author said.

Le Guin once went to a hearing that would determine whether her 1971 novel, “The Lathe of Heaven,” would be removed from a particular school district’s shelves, and she’ll always remember what one of the students who stood up to defend the book said about it:

“I thought this book was really stupid. But I want to decide that for myself.”

No, no, that isn't the remark alluded to in my headline. And, to be fair to Le Guin, I know a bit about that fundamentalist group she referred to (update: that's a tongue-in-cheek remark. Beware!). It consisted of about thirty people meeting in a "home church" in Plains, Montana. I know, because I was at the meeting. And there was spirited discussion (this was in 1974 or so) about whether or not some of the teenagers there should be reading C. S. Lewis's Narnia books because, first, the books had witches as characters and, secondly, the books used a lion to apparently symbolize the person of Jesus Christ. Although I was only five or so, I recall one man saying, "There is no need for allegory; if people want to learn about Jesus, they can read the Bible." Indeed. And if people want to read symbolism or allegory, they can read the Book of Revelation, which is, um, in the Bible. (And what about The Pilgrim's Progress? That was considered to be near gospel. But wasn't it just a wee bit allegorical in nature?)

Where was I? Well, it goes without saying that no one in our little group mentioned Le Guin, but I'm sure she and her dread book were on our mind.s Or not. I hadn't read it, and I never did.

Here, however, is remark, by Le Guin, that prompted the headline:

“Theism and atheism can be equally dangerous,” she said. “Any belief, any unbelief, is dangerous if it is adopted, enforced, accepted as the only acceptable ideology.”

Whew. If Le Guin is as good of science fiction writer as she is philosophical fiction writer, she's fabulous. This is gold. Fool's gold, glittering in its unashamed casuistry. Because if Le Guin is correct, then it follows that her absolute and uniquely "acceptable" statement—“Any belief, any unbelief, is dangerous if it is adopted, enforced, accepted as the only acceptable ideology"—is itself to be condemned as dangerous. In fact, in one neat and incredibly tidy remark she has exposed a mortal flaw in modern, secular liberalism: the belief that all beliefs are equal, which necessarily holds, as a presupposition, that said belief is itelf above, beyond, and superior to all other beliefs. Which means that some beliefs must be superior to other beliefs, which then brings us back to the key questions: What beliefs? And on what grounds, basis, or authority?

Also interesting is the remark that theism and atheism "can be equally dangerous". That sounds very deep, but it is really just very vacuous, similar to saying, "Love and hate can be equally dangerous", or "Sky diving and scuba diving can be equally dangerous". Except there is a deeper problem, since her claim that theism and atheism can be equally dangerous is, as we've seen, based on a completely false assumption about absolutes. Besides, the far better question is: Is atheism or theism more true? Which of the two makes better sense of existence, reality, morality, and human nature? And what sort of "theism" are we talking about? Of course, Le Guin was kept free from having to delve into those deep waters as she preaching to People's Republic of Eugene, Oregon, choir, who are absolutely sure that absolutely nothing is absolute.

Le Guin's statement is what I call the "Wile E. Coyote Philosophy of Life": You don't think through the premises of your plan, you don't calculate the costs if it makes no sense, and you don't bother to look at where you'll end up if you are wrong until it's too late:

Benedict XVI rides in the popemobile to House of Conde Rul, in Guanajuato, to meet President Calderon. (Matthew C. Hoffman)

The Holy Father in Mexico (Friday and Saturday) | by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman | Catholic World Report

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Mexico Friday to an enthusiastic welcome from crowds of Catholic faithful and government officials, evoking memories of Pope John Paul II's many successful trips to the world's largest Spanish-speaking country. However, the pontiff's journey is also becoming the occasion of a carefully-planned attack by a victim of the late Fr. Marcial Maciel, who accuses Benedict, John Paul, and other high officials of the Church of failing to respond adequately to the accusations against the sexually-abusive priest.

Words of encouragement and peace

Benedict arrived in Mexico on Friday, touching down in the state of Guanajuato, the heart of Mexico's strongly-Catholic Bajio region. He was received by President Felipe Calderon, and gave a brief speech thanking Mexicans for their legendary hospitality, reiterating the themes of faith, hope, and charity addressed by recent encyclicals, and promising to pray for the end of suffering caused by "old and new forms of rivalry, resentment, and violence."

"I come as a pilgrim of faith, of hope, and of charity," the pope told the crowd. "I desire to confirm the believers in Christ in their faith, consolidate them in it, and encourage them to revitalize it with the hearing of the Word of God, the sacraments, and the coherence of life. In this way, they will be able to share it with others, like missionaries among their brothers, and be a leaven in society, contributing to a respectful and peaceful coexistence, based in the incomparable dignity of every human person, created by God, and whom no power has the right to forget or despise."

President Calderon responded with a discourse on challenges facing the country, and expressing confidence that the traditional values of the Mexican people would give them the strength to prevail. Among other issues, such as poverty and economic inequality, Calderon decried the "ruthless and naked violence" caused by "delinquents" and "organized crime."

Noting that "in this, our country, 93 million of us Catholics live...we are the the country with the second highest number of Catholics in the world," Calderon credited the Church with impregnating Mexico with "the most elevated sense of love of neighbor..." Following the exchange, the pope was then taken in a procession to Leon's Colegio Miraflores in the popemobile, greeted by enthusiastic crowds whose ardor has been widely judged as equal to that afforded to his predecessor.

On Saturday the pontiff said mass privately in a chapel of the Colegio, where he had passed the night, and then proceeded to the city of Guanajuato, where he symbolically received the keys to the city from the governor and mayor of the city, and broke protocol by personally greeting members of the faithful who had come to see the event.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Cuban dissidents ask Benedict XVI to take up their cause as papal visit approaches

As Cuba prepares to receive Pope Benedict XVI on March 26, an increasing number of voices both on the island and abroad are complaining that the local church authorities are ignoring dissident groups and showing favoritism to a government that oppresses its own people. They also fear that the pontiff's visit could be exploited for the same purposes.

In recent days, Lech Walesa, the former leader of Poland's Solidarity movement that toppled the communist regime in 1989, as well as Cuban-American congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, have joined Cuban dissident groups to ask the pope to speak out against human rights abuses by the island's communist government during his upcoming trip.

The Cuban authorities have added fuel to the fire during the past week by temporarily arresting human rights protesters and other dissidents, including seventy members of the Ladies in White, which consists of the wives and female relatives of political prisoners. Thus far, requests by the Ladies in White to meet with Pope Benedict during his trip have not been answered.

Churches occupied

Seeking to take advantage of the publicity surrounding the pope's visit, a group calling itself the Republican Party of Cuba occupied several churches in the dioceses of Havana and Holguín on March 13. The group's spokesman says that they were trying to "call the attention of the pope" to their cause, which they characterize as "liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights."

Although the dioceses of Havana and Holguin deny that they asked for police intervention, the Havana protesters were ejected by government authorities by force two days later, after the archdiocese informed the police of the situation. The Republican party of Cuba complains that its members were handled roughly, and that the Bishop of Holguin behaved towards them in an insulting manner when asking them to leave, an order that was peacefully obeyed.

The Archdiocese of Havana accuses the dissidents themselves of attempting to use the pope's visit for political purposes, claiming their actions are based "on a strategy prepared and coordinated by groups in various regions of the country."

"It is not a chance event, but rather a planned one, apparently with the purpose of creating critical situations as the Pope's visit approaches," the archdiocese stated in a press release published by Granma, an organ of the government.

“It seems to me very important to announce a God who responds to our reason. We see the rationality of the cosmos; we see that there is something behind it. But we do not see how this God is near to us, how He concerns Himself with me. We do not see how this synthesis of the great and majestic God with the small God orients me, shows me the values of my life. To show this is the nucleus of evangelization.”-- Pope Benedict XVI, Interview on Flight to Mexico City, March 23, 2012 (Translation from Italian by the author)

I.

Customarily, recent popes, while flying to visit some distant country, give an interview to journalists who are with the pope on the flight. On Benedict XVI's flight to Mexico, five questions were directed to him by reporters. The questions concerned naturally the spirit and problems of Mexico and touched on general issues of Catholic thought and purpose. Benedict gave very thoughtful and indeed profound answers to what might seem, at first sight, ordinary questions.

Benedict made it clear that he considered himself to be following the footsteps of John Paul II’s earlier and historic visits to Mexico. He recalled that Mexico had recently changed its many anti-religious and anti-clerical laws so the Church was now much freer to pursue its own religious purposes without excessive governmental control. Benedict recalls that he himself had previously visited Mexico as a Cardinal. In May of 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the Latin American bishops in Guadalajara on the condition of the modern intellectual world. (For discussion, see Schall, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, October 1997).

He states right away that Mexico is a country in which 80% of the people are Catholic. But Benedict is quite aware of the issue of drug traffic in Mexico, Latin and North America. This traffic constitutes a profoundly moral issue, not just political or economic. “We ought to do what is possible against this evil so destructive of humanity and of our youth,” Benedict responds to a reporter. He then adds something that has been emphasized all through Benedict’s pontificate, especially in Spe Salvi, namely the fact of final judgment. Benedict sees this judgment as having something directly to do with the whole drug world—consumers, suppliers, and enablers.

“First, we must announce that God is a judge. We are to be soberly reminded that those who participate in the growing, transporting, protecting, legally enabling, failing to enforce, bribing, killing, and corruption that goes on in this wholly sordid business must understand that they will be judged for the terrible consequences of their acts." Benedict presents this fact as the essential first step of dealing with the problem, namely, the personal responsibility of every one and anyone involved. Justice will be requited, even if it looks like it will succeed in this world.

The Mystery of the Annunciation is the Mystery of Grace | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) | Ignatius Insight

The mystery of the annunciation to Mary is not just a mystery of silence.It is above and beyond all that a mystery of grace.

We feel compelled to ask ourselves: Why did Christ really want to be born of a virgin? It was certainly possible for him to have been born of a normal marriage. That would not have affected his divine Sonship, which was not dependent on his virgin birth and could equally well have been combined with another kind of birth. There is no question here of a downgrading of marriage or of the marriage relationship; nor is it a question of better safeguarding the divine Sonship. Why then?

We find the answer when we open the Old Testament and see that the mystery of Mary is prepared for at every important stage in salvation history. It begins with Sarah, the mother of Isaac, who had been barren, but when she was well on in years and had lost the power of giving life, became, by the power of God, the mother of Isaac and so of the chosen people.

The process continues with Anna, the mother of Samuel, who was likewise barren, but eventually gave birth; with the mother of Samson, or again with Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptizer. The meaning of all these events is the same: that salvation comes, not from human beings and their powers, but solely from God—from an act of his grace.

The annunciation to Mary happens to a woman, in an insignificant town in half-pagan Galilee, known neither to Josephus nor the Talmud. The entire scene was "unusual for Jewish sensibilities. God reveals himself, where and to whom he wishes." Thus begins a new way, at whose center stands no longer the temple, but the simplicity of Jesus Christ. He is now the true temple, the tent of meeting.

The salutation to Mary (Lk 1:28-32) is modeled closely on Zephaniah 3: 14-17: Mary is the daughter Zion addressed there, summoned to " rejoice", in formed that the Lord is coming to her. Her fear is removed, since the Lord is in her midst to save her. Laurentin makes the very beautiful remark on this text: "... As so often, the word of God proves to be a mustard seed.... One understands why Mary was so frightened by this message (Lk 1:29). Her fear comes not from lack of understanding nor from that small-hearted anxiety to which some would like to reduce it. It comes from the trepidation of that encounter with God, that immeasurable joy which can make the most hardened natures quake."

In the address of the angel, the underlying motif the Lucan portrait of Mary surfaces: she is in person the true Zion, toward whom hopes have yearned throughout all the devastations of history. She is the true Israel in whom Old and New Covenant, Israel and Church, are indivisibly one. She is the "people of God" bearing fruit through God's gracious power. ...

Transcending all problems, Marian devotion is the rapture of joy over the true, indestructible Israel; it is a blissful entering into the joy of the Magnificat and thereby it is the praise of him to whom the daughter Zion owes her whole self and whom she bears, the true, incorruptible, indestructible Ark of the Covenant.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

... In fasting, we learn to die, even if just a little bit, to our natural needs and desires, however proper they might be. In giving alms, we die to our material possessions. In confession, we die to sin and improper desires. And in prayer we die to our self-centered will, instead praying, “Thy will be done.”

Fasting, giving alms, confessing our sins and praying are rarely easy, and they are often demanding and painful. They involve suffering and they require obedience. They are concrete ways in which we grow as sons and daughters of the new covenant. When the prophet Jeremiah proclaimed the future establishment of a new covenant, he addressed a people so stubborn and practicing such vile sins — including the sacrifice of “their sons and daughters to Molech” — they were soon handed over to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and taken into exile (see Jer 32:27-35). That punishment was indeed harsh, but it was a measure of how given over they were to a culture of death and corruption.

Yet God’s promise of a new covenant was made in love, evident even in the midst of condemnation: “I will place my law within them and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” God seeks to restore communion with man. His final goal is not damnation, condemnation, exile or the destruction of anything good and right. The opening paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses the reality of the matter with succinct elegance: “God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man” (No. 1).

Spring came early to most of the 50 states this year—and with it, at least in the political fields, the usual crop of mixed truths, untruths, and wildly growing falsehoods. Let's yank up one of those weeds for a little inspection: the idea that a national "war on women" is afoot.

It's an ideological whopper that demands more scrutiny than it has so far gotten, because underneath it are solid rocks of myth concerning what are called the "social issues." Let's turn over a few of these to see what facts they hide.

Myth No. 1: The "war on women" consists of tyrannical men arrayed against oppressed but pluckily united women.

In the first place, womankind, bless her fickle heart, is not exactly united on…anything.

Public opinion polls show women to be roughly evenly divided on the question of abortion. This same diversity of opinion was also manifest in the arguments over the proposed new federal mandate forcing employers to pay for birth control, including abortifacients.

Over 20,000 women, from all walks of life, signed an open letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius objecting to the federal mandate. Co-written by lawyers Helen Alvare and Kim Daniels, that letter alone answered the taunting question of supporters of the measure, "Where are the women?" The answer: in impressive numbers on the opposite side of the dispute.

“If a tree falls in a forest,” goes the philosophical riddle, “and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

In today’s Gospel we hear something similar, yet not it is not a riddle or philosophical puzzle, but a clear response and a spiritual challenge. “Amen, amen, I say to you,” Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.”

Put as a question: if a grain of wheat does not fall to the ground and die, will it bear fruit? No, the Lord says, it will not. For although death is the enemy, it is also, paradoxically, the means to everlasting life. “By death,” the Byzantine Easter chorus announces, “he conquered death.” Such paradoxes appear contradictory and illogical, but they express a truth; it is a surprising and profound truth, as with the analogy used by Jesus.

But how is it that those who love their lives will lose them? What does it mean to say that whoever hates his life in this world will gain eternal life?

This strong language is quite similar to Jesus’ assertion that if “any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26). We know, of course, that Jesus did not condone hatred of family or strangers. Rather, by using a common form of Semitic rhetoric, he brought into bold relief the two possible options: either put Jesus first, where he belongs, or put him somewhere else.

It is never wrong to love our family, but it is wrong to put our families or ourselves before Jesus and the things of God. The man who loves his life in this world is a man who puts more sweat, tears, and time into this world than he does into the kingdom of God. If we live as though this passing, temporal world is our highest priority, it necessarily means that we have placed something that is good, because it is from God, above the greatest Good, which in turn pits that good thing against God.

Some might argue—as many critics of Christianity do—that such thinking forms people who are so heavenly-minded they are of no earthly good. In reality, the Christian who is oriented toward his final destination and who lives with the hope of heaven is of the greatest earthly good, for he rightly perceives the place and value of this world.

After all, no man has ever been more heavenly-minded than Jesus Christ, and no man has ever done more earthly good than Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, human history is marked with the tragic and bloody remains of those destroyed by men who were so earthly-minded that they were of no heavenly or earthly good.

St. Irenaeus, in his famous work, “Against Heresies,” observed that a kernel of wheat “falling into the earth and becoming decomposed rises and is multiplied by the Spirit of God, who contains all things. And then, through the wisdom of God, it serves for our use when, after receiving the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ. In the same way our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time.”

The God-fearing Greeks who came to Jerusalem to worship during the Passover said, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” This is the desire of those who know this world is not enough; they want to see and know the One who is Truth. And when the Eucharist is lifted up at Mass, we do see Jesus. We receive him completely. Having died with him in baptism, we will one day, by God’s grace, rise with Him at our appointed time.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the March 29, 2009, issue of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Aren't you getting tired of this sort of nonsense? Haven't you had enough of Catholics—even priests!—ascribing supernatural powers to a mere mortal? First, some context, from the San Jose Mercury Times:

A religious freedom rally in San Francisco on Friday attracted nearly 500 people from throughout the Bay Area vehemently opposed to a new federal requirement that insurers provide free contraception to workers.

Some waved flags. Others waved rosary beads. Many shouted "unbelievable" as speakers outlined the controversial policy in the national health reform law.

"This affects all of us as Americans, because our first freedom is freedom of religion," said Salvatore Cordileone, Bishop of Oakland.

"How dare the government define for us our religious mission?" he said. "Yes, get the government out of our church."

Initially, the regulation required employers to cover birth control and other preventive services for women without a co-pay or deductible beginning in August.

Now, brace yourself:

At the rally, Father Joseph Fessio of Ignatius Press told the crowd that when Obama was elected, "some people thought they were voting for a Messiah."

"Last month, he performed a true miracle," Fessio said. "He united all of the Catholic bishops in the U.S."